Andy Foster trying to get a few votes? Conflict of interest. Smithy, you called it right, if the stadium trust didn't rip people off so much, this debate would not be happening.
Anyway, I think this whole "ratepayer subsidy" argument is bogus. You can argue that not all ratepayers utilize the stadium so not all ratepayers should help pay for it but that's only really defensible if you're some sort of Ayn Rand loving extreme user pays individualist libertarian. The basic idea of most taxation is to take some money from everyone and then use that to pay for things which have a greater social good but don't necessarily benefit every taxpayer. Now of course a stadium isn't like a school or a hospital or a road, but events at the stadium do benefit the region as a whole. It employs people, it brings out of towners in to spend money at bars and cafes and hotels, and you could even argue that it adds to a sense of community and social cohesion, which although it isn't a direct economic benefit is still a social benefit. There's probably other benefits I haven't thought of too. So the individual ratepayers might say "why should I pay for the stadium when I don't use it?" but a lot of people never go to the library or the local museum but they don't complain about rates subsidizing those. I think there's an element of snobbery in some of this - the idea that sport is just people chasing a ball around and therefore not culturally valuable. Or something.
Or to put it another way, would you rather save $10 a year on rates, or live in a city that has a major sporting and cultural events on a regular basis?
Okay, now I end rant.